Recently, Seth Godin posted about what he called the Ism schism:

Modernism, classicism, realism, impressionism–dividing things into schools of thought–or even warring camps–makes it easy to create tension and thus attention.

When I first tweeted about this my thoughts were wow, I have faced this problem my whole academic life.   Since 2002 I have been toying with this idea introduced by a former colleague about crossing paradigm boundaries.  The ism schism eh?

Here’s where the problem is for problem solvers.  There aren’t problems of information technology, information systems, management or operations research, there are just problems, we are people we frame them.  We have invented weasel words in academia and built our kingdoms on the back of dead philosophers and then wore a path to the goal of making knowledge for the masses.   So what’s the point?  I am reading a book about the social sciences at the moment and how case studies became popular, then declined, only to become popular again and yet in both falls there is a consistent thread bringing them together.  Pointless debates about methodology.  You’d think that by now given a couple of hundred years we would have solved some of our social problems, we aren’t even close.   Not even knocking on the door, while science and other areas are shooting ahead at a lightning pace.  Why?

Perhaps the answer lies in the question: Why can’t academics solve problems?  Well how long an explanation do you want me give?  Should academics solve problems or just catalog and file them?  In a recent conversation with a senior member of staff at Griffith, I was told that I need to find my ‘patch’ and become known for something.  This is very good advice.  Yet, I am reminded of my PhD literature review of the problem solving literature that covers six major discipline areas including: Education, Philosophy, Business, Humanities, Law and Science.  Why?  Because I was stupid enough to make a commitment to study the problem of the problem.  Problems are like people, they are everywhere… funny that!  The issue now for me, a somewhat backward less modern post-post modern academic is where do I fit?   Nowhere and everywhere.  Do we start micro-defining problems?  Or macro-defining meta-knowledge?  The whole wife and two kids issue fits into this somewhere as well… dammit.

So why is the academic enterprise failing?

It’s hard to say, but I wonder what John Dewey would say if he were alive.  He once argued that we can only think about life as a process if we understood problems from the point of view of the people who gave them meaning.  He wasn’t talking about individuals only but also groups.  People who give meaning to things as a byproduct of being human.  Academics have categorised a large percentage of problems into cubes such as ‘management’, ‘information systems’, ‘international business’ and so on.  These are disciplines that have their own frames of reference, literature and so forth, yet they all have the problem of a problem and this covers differing views of what concerns us and how we think about it.   To answer my own questions, knowledge has fragmented and studies now are micro, with a very small sphere of influence.  This is a shame because we could combine our various disciplinary smarts and solve REAL problems, not imaginary ‘methodology’ problems.  A philosophical problem has meaning, it surely does, yet the impact of the meaning is almost always meaningless unless the problem is non-trivial and not just philosophical.

I will finish with a thought first brought to my attention from a book about conflict resolution.  It’s easy to say I am right and you are wrong, but it’s much harder to say in which way are both of us right?

I am growing tired of a lot of things lately dammit.  Here’s one of them:

The people in charge of our internet.

As an Australian academic who teaches information policy to international students I find this kind of rant from our senator embarrassing.  I mean really, attacking Google over a mistake with wifi data?   Then going on to say that it was a breach of privacy?  Anyone who has been around computers long enough knows how easy it is to get access to free wifi.  I wonder, where these networks secured and do the people who own them even know they were secured?  WHO KNOWS?

The students in my information policy class last night discussed this and came up with much better interpretations than the present person sitting in the job.  Even though I took the time to consider the internet filter and other issues… I think I can safely say that this man doesn’t represent me at all.  He keeps saying and doing things that boggle the mind.

Ok the rant is over for now.

But it’s not impossible?  I was in a meeting today talking about research and it occured to me why we need to think and keep on thinking about how we think about thinking in problem solving.

Why?

A situation arose where a tough issue was up for the committee to discuss and the chair rightly made the statement that it’s probably too hard.   Often they are.   The kind of issues that require a lot of stakeholders, key input from a variety of people and large scale discussions of lots of people and many perspectives.    Reaching consensus becomes hard, finding agreement becomes difficult and navigating the terrain of politics becomes very messy.  In a hierarchy it’s even worse.   The balance of power rests on the shoulders of those at the top who often are framing problems under pressure and as such go for what looks like the best option for everyone.  This leads to compromise, satisificing and a situation where we all get some of what we want sometimes and everyone sacrifices something to keep the other group of people happy.   In one way this kind of problem solving is negotiation and fails to really handle the deep issue that’s being discussed.   Yet, in most situations I have been in, this kind of situation is exactly what we have to live with.

The too hard basket: Decisions that will never be made

True creativity that involves finding new perspectives and better ideas are often missing.  Why?  It’s too-hard to argue, it’s too hard to fight, it’s too hard to offend people, it’s too hard to be creative, it’s too hard to upset a risk averse culture, it’s too hard to risk the failure that might hold up my promotion, it’s too hard to risk the mortgage, it’s too hard to challenge people because they might not like me, it’s too hard to face up to reality that innovation requires a big risk with a small chance of reward, it’s too hard to create leadership and vision in an apathetic culture and so on and so on and so on.   What’s too hard?  Problem solving is too hard so we don’t do it.  We work around it.  We never make the decisions that need to be made because it’s too hard.

What constraints are there?  Political, social, cultural…?  Lots, that’s what makes it too hard.   The cult of ‘balance’ and ‘feasibility’ will tell you that ‘it’s too hard’.  They are right it is.  We shouldn’t be ashamed of making these kinds of decisions because the opportunity to truly creative isn’t something you will find at most universities, businesses or fund raising events.  No, it’s something you will have to search for.

True Creativity and Problem Solving means using the too hard basket

Rules are good except when they stand in the way of change.  To be truly creative we need to be making decisions where we have the guts to reframe.  Have you heard the saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?   In most circumstances I have been in we empty a little bit of the water, keep the baby when we should have really tossed the kid and drained the tub.  That’s not a good picture is it?  Yet, that hidden assumption that things are generally ok is so bad it’s toxic.  Sometimes, things are pretty far from ok.  They are not ok.  They are failing.

Failure is the signpost of change that says: this didn’t work.  It’s like Microsoft Windows really or a badly leaking dingy… just patch it up!  The bastard is sinking and water is coming in the boat but hey that’s ok because we have a lot of tape in here and that will keep this thing floating until the next poor sucker comes along and patches it up.  The problem is…. it’s too hard to change when it’s easier to get people to agree, which in itself is very, very hard.

So what are we to do?

I don’t know.  But I know this: things don’t always get worse before they get better, sometimes they keep getting worse until they become bottom of the fridge nasty.   So we are faced with a tough choice.  Do we innovate, negotiate or detonate?  These are tough choices.  In my meeting experience this morning I caught a glimpse of how hard it is to be innovative and create new directions when you answer to so many people.  It’s difficult and requires support.   In my limited experience, real problem solving means: bringing out the concern, the perspectives that construct it, the stakeholders and finding ways to reach a place where the problem is no longer a problem.  It sounds simple?  It isn’t!

When I read articles like this one I am left scratching my head at the ability of people in power to tackle serious problems.    Here’s a quote from the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) leader man:

“I think it is a mistake to assume that a, you know, riskless easy, guaranteed way to Prosperity is just to be leveraged up into property,” he told the Seven Network. “You know, it isn’t going to be that easy.”

He added that he worries about whether future generations will be able to achieve home ownership.

“I’ve got kids that within not too many more years are going to want somewhere of their own to live and you wonder, you know, how is that going to be afforded because prices are getting quite high.”

Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.

Is this guy on crack? He’s the leader of the reserve bank and he wonders if his children will be able to afford a house?  So the leaders of this nation are quite happy to let the rich get richer and increase housing in-affordability in Australia?

The place where I grew up is the third most expensive place to live in the world and it’s not that flash.  For me to buy a house in my suburb means that I need 6.5 going 7 times my current income, almost as bad as places like London or Sydney.   So what’s the answer from the man in charge.  Allow me to paraphrase for you:

“Oh who knows.  I mean my kids can’t afford it but instead of actually managing the issue you know what I am going to do?  I am going to treat this as if it has nothing to do with me.  It’s the market!   Oh by the way, if you are looking to get into the market, you can’t because we made it too expensive for the average young Australian wage earner.  Sorry about that.  So you young people, just sit around collecting degrees and um er… yeah as you were.”

This is not solving the problem, it’s absolving it.  Sitting there and wondering as it passes you buy.  No offense man, but seriously if you don’t know what to do, what the hell am I supposed to tell my kids?  Good luck kids, get a massive home loan and live in the middle of Uranus.

A lesson in Problem Absolving – Problem Solving is not doing nothing!

The late Russell Ackoff called problem absolution (doing nothing) the option most people take.  Nothing is being done to fix this issues so it cycles around the system creating no improvement.  When a situation is improved, we notice.  We say, ‘holy crap, I can afford a house.’  When it gets worse we say, ‘OMG, the problem isn’t getting any better.’  Simple?  Doing nothing is, ‘Oh that’s a problem, er… come back and see me in a year and you will be ok.’

I am at a complete loss to explain a lack of governmental response to the price of houses.  Even with a grant, the boost and any other kind of incentive, there is no way I can ever hope to live anywhere near I work and raise my family.  It just won’t happen.  It’s not just me either.  Data from the latest ABS survey indicates (it does go here to check it out) that housing debt carried by Australian families is approaching the 40% mark.  Putting aside my hobby horse for a moment, consider the ramifications of that.  What happens if that becomes too much in the future?  What happens to our economy?  Forget about home ownership: what about long term security?

Possible Solutions

I am not an economist, I am barely an academic so here goes.  A list of things we could do right now:

• Take away the financial imperative: Create a situation where home ownership is regulated by the government.  A years wage (on average) for a house.  Ok, so like I said, I am not an economist.  Economists: why won’t this work?
• Remodel work so it can be done from anywhere and support the mobile workforce:  Create hubs and campuses for city dwellers in places like Uranus, I mean Pluto, I mean the country.  Change the reason for living in a city to one of lifestyle and promote that.  Sure, that will drive prices higher and create weird developer towns like North Lakes.  It will give losers like me an entry point.
• Stop blaming the market and think about price ceilings: There is a natural level of supply for demand but here’s the kicker, Price. Supply and Demand is regulated by the price people are willing and able to pay. These stupid arguments about not enough land, blah blah blah.  What about price?  The argument goes: price drives up demand because of the lack of supply for a scarce resource.  I.e.  From the above quoted article: “Prices are continuing to rise on the back of demand from a growing population outstripping housing supply.”  If this were true why is there so much vacant land in the outer regions of Australia?  A better way of saying this would be: At the current price, which is rising due to the perceived lack of supply and a growing base of people wanting to buy in city areas, housing is become more expensive.  Therefore, demand for these city properties is surging and the price ceiling (the price people are willing and able to pay), has yet to be reached.   Oh but is there a price ceiling?  I thought house prices only ever went up… right?  WRONG!  Conventional economics says that price regulates supply and demand, yet I can’t find a single article that clearly explains this, why?  Well, I have no idea about economics that’s why!
• Change our desires: This is a tough one.  We want a house because we desire.  Give me some drugs so I don’t want me own place. Now I know why a lot of people smoke weed (I don’t).
• Make bigger caravan parks: Okay so now I am getting silly.  At least I have attempted to apply some ideas to the problem instead of turning on the money hose or sitting back, scratching my arse saying,’Oh yeah that is a problem eh!’.

As I write this I am pondering my future and looking with dismay as I save money, labour under yet another dragon of a landlord and work towards my first home purchase.  The question, that will no doubt go unanswered is this:  What are we going to do about it?  The answer I expect is nothing because all of the rhetoric I see coming out of the media is complete bullshit.  You know, stuff like: Save a deposit (can’t save that much – I have two kids), don’t want a massive house for your first home (I am looking for a small 3 Bedroom place for me and me kids bro), don’t complain, Entitlement mentality (I am not entitled but this is a desire you are profiting from mr. developer, take it away and I write about something else) and all the other shit the media says people in my generation are guilty of.  I say, cram it with walnuts jack! How’s this:  If I save for ten years I will have saved one-quarter of what I need in today’s prices.  What will the prices be in ten years?  A million dollars for a complete dog box with no windows in the middle of the ocean?  Jesus wept!

I will leave you with this link to remind you of what happens when we don’t take a proactive approach towards our problems.  I would also recommend that all Australians read the Subprime Solution by Robert Shiller.  Sure, that may not happen here but it may help us structure the problem in a way that leads to… OMG… a solution!

Mine doesn’t.

It most industries I have encountered, advertisers lie.  This is obvious to most and the distrust bread in the general public is now at a point where I believe most people have stopped believing what advertising says to us.  When the celebrity comes on to our screens and smiles showing us, ‘you can look just like me’ an uneven false image is created.   You can’t hope to look like them.  Yet advertisers build their campaigns around a deep down truth that is a lie we tell ourselves.  Things such as:

You can look younger by using skin cream

You can improve you health by drinking this

Take these pills and you will lose weight fast with no side effects

And so on and so on. Why do we buy these lies?  Even television channels do this by piquing our interest with clever editing in the commercials.  They place a well-crafted lie in a commercial and we accept it… or do we?  I think we know it’s false and realise the lie but buy things in hope.  We don’t believe false advertising with our minds, we believe them with our actions, often against our better judgement.

I think this is kind of theatre we have grown accustomed to and expect.  Take for example the following advertisement:

In a strange way Cadbury are selling chocolate by way of entertainment.  A marketing guru I saw on the Gruen Transfer argued that chocolate sales went up as a result of that ad.  I would say it this way: Interest was piqued in chocolate because of that ad and people remembered why they liked it and went and bought it.  I don’t think you need to advertise to sell chocolate, just sell it at a reasonable price and people will buy it and this is the point isn’t it?

What Advertising people do so well is play with our Engagement, the way we think and act in social settings.  Engagement is a word I have used to talk about how people think and how that influences the way they act.  Advertising plays on both.  If I was being a pragmatic philosopher I would say, ‘thinking is acting’.  That is, advertisers make us think and because that influences our behaviour.  That’s no surprise but what is: they deceive us to do it.   For my final example, I will use real estate advertising.

Real Estate is a controversial area.  So many people have been ‘ripped’ off by agents in one way or another.  Yet, the way a house is sold relies explicitly on the honesty of the buyer and the real estate agent.  My father in law told me how he recently pulled out of buying a house simply because the building inspection came back as showing evidence of termites.  In Australia, especially Brisbane, this is a big deal.  It can mean you have massive damage to the structure of the house and you will be up for thousands of dollars in repair bills.   He had built into the contract that subject to a building inspection, he wouldn’t purchase the house.   So he didn’t.  He lost his deposit and recent reports show that the same house has been resold twice in three years.  All that pain could have been avoided if an honest approach prevailed.  Yet, you can’t sell a house unless you lie… right?

Putting aside all arguments about ethics, integrity and character, there is another pragmatic issue for advertisers here that needs thinking about.  That is, the issue of how to sell things in an economy where attention is the scarcity.  Does that mean more dishonesty should come in so we pay attention?  Are we really to believe the claims of real-estate agents?  I think not.  Yet, these are the social connections we have forged.  It doesn’t mean every real estate agent is a liar or a cheat.  Of course not.  But, which one that you know would happily point out the termites in a building and say, ‘hey check this out, there’s a huge problem that’s going to cost you thousands of dollars.’  It’s ‘buyer beware’ because that’s the society we live in and that’s what we expect.  So it is in advertising, we know it’s pretend so we go along with so-called false advertising and accept it because we know we are being lied. It’s a social contract.

The question is: why have we come to accept it?

We often argue with people simply to prove our point or win.  Take for example the following debate:

‘I believe in free will I can do what I want.’

VS.

‘I believe in FATE everything is predetermined.’

For the record I don’t know what I believe.  Back to the post.  How can you ever resolve this?  You can’t.  It’s a bipolar idea.  It has one side which is a the down side and one which is the upside.  Do you know what these ideas have in common?  They are based on an assumption/assessment of the future.  Yet there is a connection here.  If these people both went about their lives something would happen… something magical.  They would eventually die and at some point they are likely to pay tax.   Yet they would never report the event in the same way:  It’s God’s will that I pay tax, I choose to pay tax.  It’s God’s plan that I die, I die because I choose to keep living.  Both ways of thinking are different yet can never be proven outside the frame of human thought.  Why?  Because, they are bipolar ideas.  If one says the sun is up, the other says it’s down.

Here’s a third option

Try another idea.  Why not say somethings are predetermined others are not, because I choose.  Or let’s just do away with the whole stupid bipolar idea in the first place and say it this way: I have no idea.  I pay tax because I don’t want to go to jail and I die because life stops at some point.  No big deal.  It’s just the way it has to be because I choose to pay tax.    Or because I can’t cheat death I choose to keep living until I expire.  The predetermined has now become my choice, even though it’s not a choice at all.

Breaking your brain?

Maybe.  But remember it’s only an idea and that’s all it could be ever ever ever.  Why?  I don’t know why it’s just what I believe.  An idea only has the power to convey the abstract long enough until the reality of life hammers it out.  Yet, I won’t know that a turtle rules world as suggested by some religions and Stephen King until I die.  Even then I may never find out.  It may be black and I will be alone.  I still believe in Ghosts.

Is there more than one answer?

To Bipolar ideas?  No.  They are the same idea but looked at from two different points of view at once.   Not all ideas are bipolar some tripolar some have no polar, others are simply unanswerable.   Some ideas though have a special quality in that they are the same idea but because they are dealing with a difficult concept you can actually see them two ways at once.

See what happens when you do a PhD kids you eventually go crazy.

Being not redundant.  I was one of the few people who got to stay on.

Things remain the same.

Things remain the same.

What just happened?

NEWS FLASH: I did not lose my job this time, instead I move to International Business and Asian Studies.  I will teach Information Systems from there until the next time things change.

As you were.

No.  Why not?  In my limited experience there comes a time when you have to make choices that will benefit the corporation and hurt people.  You can only go so far before you will be required to sell your soul to get ahead.   There might come a time when the organisation is ‘restructuring’ or ‘changing direction’ and guess who they call on as the toe cutter?   Your choice?  To keep your job, you have to tell them who to get rid of.  One person I know once had to sack a group of people, one who was a good friend and dying of cancer, because shareholders didn’t have enough money.   It takes a lack of heart to do things like that, and a small piece of you dies when you do it.

Call it corporate objectives, call it ‘profit’, call it what you like, but the minute you put money and the corporation ahead of human decency you have sold your soul to the corporation and you have become it’s property.  Just wait until the wheel turns and it’s your turn to be crushed into powder.

There is a dog, a proud member of the canine species called the Chihuahua.  Some of the uneducated call these wonderful creatures, ‘rats’ or some such pejorative, which portrays the Chihuahua as ugly or evil.  There are big raggedy dogs, loyal but stupid, that most people cling to as if they were Lassie or a member of the four-legged elite.  They lick you and jump around as if they can’t work out you are right in front of them and to a certain extent they are lovable..two full stops here! Yet there is only one Chihuahua.  This breed stands as the most wonderful and loyal of all companions a man or woman could have.

I remember a dog that was in our family, owned by the most annoying of all relatives, that was large, ungainly, smelly and loud.  When you saw him for the first time in a while, he would rush at you wagging his tremendous tail, knocking over vases, cups, small children and whatever stood in reasonable distance.  He was clumsy and would overpower you with his weight for that bizarre licking ritual that big dogs like so much.  When that happened you would wind up being covered in saliva, waving your arms about like a helpless moron and wondering why you made the journey to said relatives place in any case.  To say that big dogs are ugly and annoying is not fair because you can’t blame the dog for its form. You just have to except it.  And yes, a big dog is very loyal  (Loyalty, a quality absent from most organisations and sadly from most people) but the Chihuahua offers more than any of the other species of dog.

You could be under attack by a swooping bird (and I have been many times) or a Doberman and at the risk of all that is reasonable or even ‘worth it’ for most dogs, your Chihuahua would come running at the speed of light to ‘save’ you from the would-be assailant.   I remember once that my late Chihuahua attacked a dog at least twenty times his size, only to be picked up in the bigger dogs mouth and spat out, simply because he felt his owner was threatened.  When my first child was brought home, he sat there faithful watching over to make sure nobody could come near her, he was her ‘protector’.  Such is their loyalty, they will defend you and be there no matter what, even if it means their own hide.

Many years ago I used to have the privilege of visiting a farm for horse riding.  I was very lucky considering that people in my socio-economic class were lucky to even see a horse let alone sit on one.  I remember that the lady, a close friend of my mothers, had a little Chihuahua named ‘Garlic’.  A horse was taken by this little dog and thought it a novelty and placed its giant nose over the dog to see what it was.  I was surprised when the small, three-kilogram, dog jumped up and bit the horse squarely on the nose.  The horse was so shocked that it took two steps backward in utter dismay at the small creature that had dared to bite him.  Not only is the Chihuahua loyal, but they have attitude.  Most dogs are dumb, sad to say, and will run around chasing Frisbees or copulating with anything that looks even remotely doable.  A Chihuahua, despite the relative size of its brain, is cunning. You only need to realise that they can make you believe that it’s your fault for biting a horse, that you know this to be true.  If the little dog could speak it would have said,

‘I’m sorry but what the hell was the horse doing near me anyway, this is my space not his!’

Another thing a Chihuahua brings to a relationship is a sense of knowing which assholes not to let into your life.  They are excellent at detecting people of poor character.  I remember one time my aforementioned dog (may God rest his soul), would constantly attack a woman that would visit.  For no reason in particular, he would launch and begin biting her furiously[1].  My wife and I were left with no idea as to the reason for this violence. (Perhaps she wore a scent that made him think). Then a few years later, through the grapevine, we found out that she had abandoned her husband and taken to sleeping around with more than one person, and left him largely in the lurch with a small child they shared custody of.  Our dog knew she was a slut long before we did!  Incredible to think that a beast, no taller than a workman’s boot, can sense evil when it sees’s it.  This was not a singular affair either, it was on many an occasion.  One time we had to work hard to get rid of the problematic person but we eventually did it, long after my little Chihuahua had passed on. Yes, I have lost even more friends because my dog didn’t like a particular person and to this end it has always worked out for the best.

The final and most important part of having a Chihuahua is the love they offer in return for your companionship.  You will have friends that will dessert you, your dumbass relatives will fight with you but no matter what you do to your poor little Chihuahua, they will never leave your side.  You could be engulfed in flames or dying on a floor from a gunshot wound and your dog would defend you and sit there beside you.  You could hit the dog with a rolled up newspaper and they would forgive you, almost instantly, because they know what loyalty means.  Most people I have had the displeasure of spending time with, want something from me and aren’t interested in me or what I have to say.  It’s not about companionship, loyalty or friendship with most people, it’s about what’s in it for them.  With a Chihuahua they ask for your trust, love and companionship right to the very end of their short, meaningful little lives.  Their eyes never betray you for an instant, they never really have a secret plan to steal your job, or go behind your back to take something from you because they love you, unconditionally.

They never ask you for money or take advantage of you, sure they might steal your pillow or your seat when you rise to grab a coffee or to go the toilet, sure they are cunning, but that’s part of their spirit and I like that.  They don’t want to borrow or beg, unless of course ham is involved.  They need us and we them and put simply that’s why the Chihuahua is a wonderful dog: they exemplify what a dog should be… a true companion.

---

[1] Now I should point out at this stage that the dog didn’t actually bite her, he was merely offering a warning by gumming her.  Although on at least one occasion he made her bleed.